Richard Dawkins On Science Writing 50
otee writes "Richard Dawkins asks the question: Why hasn't a Nobel Prize been awarded to a scientist for literary work? He suspects that it simply hasn't occurred to the judges. Read the well written article at The Edge Website for information about good (science) writing."
Churchill (Score:1, Informative)
On the other hand: Winston Churchill got the Nobel prize for literature for his memoires, not really proze or poetry.
This is why he's not won a nobel prize.. (Score:1)
Re:This is why he's not won a nobel prize.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is why he's not won a nobel prize.. (Score:2)
I was wondering what he'd been doing since leaving Family Feud [timvp.com].
Of course, I was a bigger fan of his Dramatic Work [tv1.com.au]...
Re:This is why he's not won a nobel prize.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Dawkins actually has some fascinating ideas. Some of them happen to be great memes so you've probably heard of them even if you don't know where they originated.
Does he deserve a Nobel prize? Well, I don't know and that's not for me to decide anyway. But he deserves better than to be berated for a spelling error he probably didn't make (on Slashdot o
Wow! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow! (Score:2, Informative)
Are scientific articles really literature? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or to put it differently: a play by Shakespeare may make you cry, because of the emotions the play has stirred in you. If you cry over a scientific article, it is mostly because of the bad writing or obvious mistakes.
The article also comments on the subject of readability of scientific publications, but this is IMHO another debate
Re:Are scientific articles really literature? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Are scientific articles really literature? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are scientific articles really literature? (Score:4, Informative)
Still, I wouldn't rate it as literature, since Hawkins intended to inform the reader, and not necessarily to "emotionalize" (the latter - in my opinion - being the prime motive for literature).
IMHO it really boils down to the emotions (other than the occasional joke) conveyed in a text. This aspects sets scientific and literature texts apart. And this aspect is (again, IMHO) what makes a text worthy to receive a nobel prize.
Re:Are scientific articles really literature? (Score:2, Informative)
Stephen Hawking wrote "A Brief History of Time" [amazon.com]. Richard Dawkins, the subject of this article, wrote "The Blind Watchmaker" [amazon.com] and lots of other books on evolutionary biology. Two different authors.
Re:Are scientific articles really literature? (Score:2)
Apologies for the mix-up and confusion I may have caused
Re:Are scientific articles really literature? (Score:1)
Re:Are scientific articles really literature? (Score:2)
Re:Are scientific articles really literature? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Are scientific articles really literature? (Score:1)
Let me put it differently for you: a scientific article may make you cry, because of the emo
Russel got one (Score:4, Informative)
Bertrand Russel got the Nobel prize for literature. But I guess he counts as a mathematician.
Re:Russel got one (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Russel got one (Score:5, Funny)
How else would he?
Re:Russel got one (Score:3, Informative)
So no, I don't think he really counts as a mathematician as far as Nobel committee is concerned; I think the prize was more for his political activism and his writings relating to that (for example: The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism or The Freedom and Organisation 1814-1914) rather than his Principles of Mathematics or Introduction to Mathemati
newspaper drivel (Score:3, Interesting)
As a scientist, I have to interpret this as being about entertainers, not scientists and not novelists: "What is your motivation? Writing, inspired by science? Science, inspired by the search for knowledge? Entertainment, inspired by wanting to inspire people?"
Personally I suspect that he is wanting to strike back at literature for having both artistic and academic outcomes.
R
What? You mean it doesn't count as science if... (Score:1)
Re:What? You mean it doesn't count as science if.. (Score:2)
And the toast? (Score:2)
the man doesn't actually do any real science. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:the man doesn't actually do any real science. (Score:2)
Translation (Score:3, Troll)
Re:Translation (Score:3)
Re:Translation (Score:1)
Then I'll Nominate: (Score:3, Interesting)
But sadly my hero Carl Sagan never was able to capture any of my siblings interest due to the fact that they could never get over the "billions & billions" thing.
Anyone else have suggestions?
Re:Then I'll Nominate: (Score:1)
Re:Then I'll Nominate: (Score:2)
Don't get greedy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't get greedy... (Score:2)
Exactly. Goedel, Escher, Bach won the Pulitzer, which isn't the Nobel Prize, but it looks just as good on a writer's resume as a Nobel Prize does on a scientist's.
Read Nodel's Will . . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Literature is one of the five prize areas mentioned in Alfred Nobel's will. The will was, however, partly incomplete. Nobel simply stated that prizes be given to those who, during the preceding year, "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and that one part be given to the person who "shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction."
Though this statement is somewhat subjective, based on Nobel's will, can anyone put together a compelling argument that any scientific publication fits Nobel's critieria for the prize in Literature? I am doubtful . . . remember, for the prize in Literature, the way that it is written is probably more important than the science that is presented . . .
I hate to rain on the parade but when has scientific writing ever taken literature in an ideal direction?
Re:Read Nodel's Will . . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Read Nodel's Will . . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
This couldn't be further from the truth. Literature is about the sharing of information: thoughts, ideas, feelings, memories. This information enriches the lives of the readers. It stirs emotion, brings cause to arms, makes you think, teaches you something. This is what Nobel had in mind when he willed the prize, not a superfluous style of writing.
Re:Read Nodel's Will . . . . (Score:2)
Well, I'd nominate Neal Stephenson! (Score:1)
Hmmm. L. Ron Hubbard won an Ig Nobel in 1994 for "Dianetics"! Is that close enough?
online forums (Score:1)
Re:online forums (Score:2)
Science as literature? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now for my rant... Why it's hard to view scientific literature as literature.
I'm taking a break from finishing my term paper for an English class. In fact, this semester, I'm a part-time student, and I'm only taking English classes (gasp!). One of the things I have noticed this semester is how English professors solve problems. Sure, English professors like to examine problems, just not in a rigourous way. Wh
Re:rigorous (Score:1)
colour
flavour
etc
It's more elegant.